Pigai Denies Human Rights Bill Undermines Komnas HAM
Minister of Human Rights Natalius Pigai has denied claims that the Human Rights Bill revision seeks to weaken Komnas HAM’s authority. He stated that the draft prepared by his ministry actually strengthens the independent body’s position.
‘It is impossible to diminish. It is even stronger, as Komnas HAM will have its own investigators,’ he said when contacted on Thursday, 28 May 2026.
In drafting the Human Rights Bill, Pigai said Komnas HAM will also gain the authority to issue compulsory summonses.
However, a clause in the draft bill has been removed—the research and human rights education functions currently carried out by Komnas HAM under Article 89(1). This is one of Komnas HAM’s objections to the proposed amendment.
On this issue, Pigai explained that education functions are not Komnas HAM’s responsibility. He stated that global practice places the responsibility for public education on the government. ‘Educational needs are the state’s responsibility, primarily the government’s,’ he said.
Pigai said Komnas HAM’s role is solely to monitor and oversee human rights violation cases. He urged Komnas HAM commissioners to thoroughly understand the provisions in the draft bill. ‘All those drafting the Human Rights Bill are experts in their fields,’ he said.
He stated that the draft bill was prepared by the ministry alongside constitutional law experts and former Komnas HAM commissioners. Pigai mentioned Jimly Asshiddiqie as one of the figures invited to provide input.
Separately, former Constitutional Court Chief Justice Jimly Asshiddiqie confirmed he had been invited by the Ministry of Human Rights for Human Rights Bill discussions but did not attend the meeting. ‘I was hospitalised,’ he said on Thursday, 28 May 2026.
In a separate statement, Komnas HAM Chair Anis Hidayah said the removal of research and education functions would weaken the body’s ability to monitor state activities and foster critical awareness among government officials. She noted these functions have been vital in preventing human rights abuses, mapping root causes, and enhancing the capacity of law enforcement and the public.
Komnas HAM also highlighted Article 79(d) of the draft bill, which states that Komnas HAM’s findings must be submitted to the ministry to ensure human rights perspectives in policy-making. Anis argued this provision could transform Komnas HAM from an independent monitor into a subordinate administrative body of the ministry.
Additionally, concerns were raised about recommendation interventions. Anis stated that Article 86(3) of the draft bill designates the minister as the coordinator for implementing Komnas HAM’s recommendations on economic, social, and cultural rights. ‘This opens the door to significant political interference in human rights case follow-ups,’ she said.
Anis also noted the draft bill contains substantive flaws by deviating from constitutional terminology through the insertion of ‘individual’ as a rights holder. She said this lacks legal basis as Chapter XA of the 1945 Constitution consistently uses ‘every person’, ‘citizen’, and ‘resident’ as legal subjects.
‘This inconsistent terminology is not merely a linguistic issue but a flawed philosophical shift that could push human rights protection towards an individualistic paradigm alien to the nation’s philosophy,’ Anis said.
Anis urged the government to respect the separation of roles between Komnas HAM as an independent body and the Ministry of Human Rights as the president’s executive agency. ‘Clear boundaries between the two will foster healthy and constructive institutional relations,’ she said.
Furthermore, Komnas HAM called for the Human Rights Law amendment not to contradict the spirit of the 1998 Reform. Instead, the revision should strengthen Komnas HAM’s broad and strategic mandate, given its constitutional significance.